Just For Fun

While much of Washington is currently atwitter (and a-Twitter, of course) over the growing possibility that in the near future, one or more top White House advisors may be shown the door (centering, so far, around Mike Flynn, Sean Spicer, and Reince Priebus), I personally think Trump should consider cutting his losses in a different way. Palace intrigue is always fun to speculate about, of course, but aside from personalities, President Donald Trump should really consider just cutting his losses on the whole idea of a "temporary ban" on immigration. He should, in short, declare victory and move on.

For those of you laughing loudly at that previous sentence, allow me to explain. Yes, Trump has now lost twice in the courts. This means the chances he'll lose again -- no matter what next legal step he takes -- are quite high. He could appeal the decision to the entire Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He could appeal the decision directly to the Supreme Court. He could continue fighting at the District Court level. All of these strategies are likely to fail, however. The full Ninth Circuit is not likely to overturn a decision that, so far, has been made by two Democratically-appointed judges and two Republican-appointed judges. That's not likely to happen, and would just waste time. Pushing it to the Supreme Court might get a 4-4 split decision, which would just uphold last week's decision against Trump. The District Court judge obviously thinks Trump is going to lose on the merits of the case (hence the initial temporary restraining order in the first place), so Trump's not likely to find judicial joy there, either.

Trump could try an end-run, by issuing a new (and more limited) executive order. This would make all the previous judicial action meaningless, and restart the clock. But there's no reason after the clock restarts that Trump will have any better luck -- another judge (or the same one) could just as easily issue another restraining order blocking implementation. If Trump had two orders halted, it's unlikely a third would work either. Part of the case against Trump is his motives for the action (which are unconstitutional, according to Trump's legal foes), meaning that rewording the order might not help Trump's case at all.

So how does Trump make lemonade out of this legal lemon? By ignoring the whole "temporary ban" part of his promise, and moving straight to the "extreme vetting" part, that's how. Trump has always -- even from his first unveiling of what was then billed as a "Muslim ban" -- consistently said he wants a "pause" in allowing entry. This pause was designed to give Trump time to institute new "extreme vetting" rules, pretty much from the beginning. So why waste so much time and energy fighting for what was always supposed to be a temporary ban?

If the issue continues to get wrapped up in the court system, that means it is going to move pretty slowly. Months will go by before any court decision on the merits of the case is made, and then that will be appealed, and appealed again, and will eventually wind up at the Supreme Court. All of this takes time, even on an expedited schedule. By the time a final decision is reached, the temporary period laid out in the executive order will long be past, in other words.

Instead, Trump could pivot to the extreme vetting and just ignore the ban altogether. He could tell his supporters that those nasty, liberal judges (two appointed by Republican presidents, but whatever) were stopping him from doing what he wanted, but it wouldn't make any difference because the extreme vetting was now ready to go. That's an argument his supporters would undoubtedly buy. The ultimate goal of Trump's plan was always the extreme vetting anyway, so who would care if the temporary ban idea had to go by the wayside?

Donald Trump has never, to the best of my knowledge, defined what extreme vetting is even supposed to mean. That means virtually any changes in the vetting process could qualify, in Trump's eyes (and his supporters'). Politically, this is an easy case to make, which is where the whole "declare victory and move on" part comes in.

People attempting to visit the United States encounter various degrees of hassle before they are allowed in. The easiest of these processes is for a tourist from a country that we trust. There is no process for these visitors other than talking to an Immigration agent at the point of entry. No visa is required at all.

Countries we don't trust so much have various other vetting for people wanting to travel here. A visa is required, even for a tourism trip. That means tourists must contact the United States embassy in their country, and provide paperwork with their visa request. If the visa is denied, they can't come to America. Travel to America for business purposes requires a similar process (although different paperwork). So does a student visa to attend school here, or a fiancée visa to get married to an American.

For people not traveling for casual purposes but rather to immigrate to America, the process is much harder to get through, and a whole lot more paperwork is required. Immigrants of any type are screened and examined and interviewed extensively, before residency is allowed. But one of the highest screening categories is for refugees. The process to enter America as a refugee takes two years and many levels of vetting already. Most people (and a whole lot of Trump supporters) aren't aware of this fact, but that doesn't change it.

Because Trump's never defined extreme vetting, all he'll need to do is add his own tweaks to a vetting system that is already pretty robust. Have someone in the White House do a deep dive into the Immigration procedures for refugees, and perhaps for immigrants of any type. Changes could even be made to other categories as well (some have even suggested requiring Europeans to get tourist visas). Trump could revamp whatever he wanted, and it probably wouldn't change what prospective entrants have to go through all that much. Maybe there'll be another page of questions to answer on the immigration forms (there are already multiple pages of questions, including things such as: "Were you a member of the Nazi party back in World War II?"). Maybe the interviews will be longer or more in-depth (or have additional specific questions). None of that would really change the process for the person applying all that much -- because it is already such a stringent process to get through. They already have to answer a whole bunch of questions, both on paper and in person. A few more won't change the experience much for them, in other words. The additional questions likely won't change the outcome a whole lot, either, in terms of who is allowed in and who isn't (as mentioned, the vetting process is already pretty darn robust), although it might significantly slow it down for the countries Trump is currently targeting.

Politically, however, it could be rolled out as a complete and total victory for Trump. Trump could brag that he had "outsmarted" the court systems by skipping from the temporary ban to his stated ultimate goal. He could make all sorts of unverifiable statements about how massively he had improved the vetting process. He would quite likely brag about how he had come up with "the toughest, most extreme vetting in all of history." Since he conveniently never defined what that was supposed to mean in the first place, who could successfully contradict him when he claims to have achieved his undefined goal? Specific criteria used for immigration (if the Trump administration oversteps constitutional bounds on any of their new questions or procedures, in other words) could still get challenged in court, but that has always been the case.

Donald Trump's Muslim ban promise was always just a political ploy. It allowed him to whip up anti-Muslim feelings at his political rallies (which did indeed happen, just as planned). When Trump got elected, he instructed Rudy Giuliani to find a way to make his promise legal. Giuliani -- and everyone else involved in the effort to draft Trump's original executive order -- failed spectacularly at the whole "make it legal" thing. The more Trump tries to fix this fiasco, the more he is likely to do nothing but achieve more and more pushback from the judiciary. So why bother?

The second part of this political ploy was always a lot more achievable than the first. Trump promised a Muslim ban, not fully understanding that any such effort was doomed to fail (because of that pesky Constitution). No president is able to just ban all Muslims from coming in to America. Period. But who even knows what extreme vetting means? Unlike a Muslim ban (which is, constitutionality aside, a pretty easy concept to grasp), extreme vetting means whatever Trump defines it to mean.

Don't get me wrong -- I am extremely reluctant to offer political advice to this particular president, on any subject. However, as time goes by, I think this path out of the legal maze Trump now finds himself in is going to become more and more obvious, even to Trump and his advisors. Declare victory and move on is always a tempting tactic -- and in this particular case, given how the ban was only supposed to ever be temporary and how the ultimate goal has never been defined in any way, I think eventually Trump will be forced into just dropping the whole ban idea and leapfrogging to the (easier) second half of his campaign promise. He can score his political points, the people affected will have to answer fifteen or twenty more questions (or whatever) on what is already a giant list of questions, and we can all move on to the next political fight. Again, this all seems obvious to me, which is why I'm pointing it out today. Call it a prediction, rather than political advice.

182 Comments on “Trump Should Cut His Losses”

Decreasing the number of countries in the visa waiver program would likely hit tourism - it is a pain getting a visa. Back in 1986 I was moving to Montreal to work and knew I'd be going down to New York to visit relatives. I went though the whole visa rigmarole and it was a giant PITA. I had to answer the question "Do you intend to kill the President of the United States" or something like that.

It was well known that the border patrol had no sense of humor after numerous Brits (and probably even more Irish) were hassled when they gave a smart aleck response.

But you are right CW - I expected 45 to sprinkle like a boisterous chihuahua and claim he had done this and that.

Here is 45's problem with declaring victory however, it takes away his excuse if, heaven forbid, there is an attack.

If 45 insists he has now made us safe with his new extreme vetting and there is an attack, he is going to look like a fool.

It is the same with Obamacare - notice how that has dropped off the right wing talking points recently?

If I were leading the Democrats I'd be laying the groundwork for the collapse in support from the Republican base. Get the talking points on:

1. 45 is destroying healthcare with the Obamacare repeal
2. 45's is failing to address the real problems with terrorism - internal terrorists (I'd use the term "internal" to encompass radical Islam and radical White Supremacist criminals)
3. 45 isn't delivering on the economy
4. 45's immigration policy is destroying businesses - and I'd have ranchers in the West complaining about how they are already disappointed with 45.
5. How the wall isn't going to work, and since Mexico isn't going to pay for it, the American taxpayer is now on the hook for a $22B ego trip

Just pound on the Economy, Terrorism and ineffective immigration plans - these were the top three issues in November, and now 45 and McConnell own them.

Because Trump's never defined extreme vetting, all he'll need to do is add his own tweaks to a vetting system that is already pretty robust.

Excerpts from the written speech 08/15/16 regarding fighting terrorism and therefore contains none of the off prompter word salad added when Trump stumbled through it.

A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern all decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people.

In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.

In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.

Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.

Only those who we expect to flourish in our country – and to embrace a tolerant American society – should be issued visas.

Heh. It does not sound like 45 will be able to pass his own criteria. Sad!

For those of you laughing loudly at that previous sentence, allow me to explain. Yes, Trump has now lost twice in the courts. This means the chances he'll lose again -- no matter what next legal step he takes -- are quite high.

Unless he waits until Judge Gorsuch is confirmed. But it's more likely that President Trump will simply issue a revised Executive Order, now that he knows the Democrats' positions... And will likely add more countries to the list... :D

Instead, Trump could pivot to the extreme vetting and just ignore the ban altogether. He could tell his supporters that those nasty, liberal judges (two appointed by Republican presidents, but whatever)

Doesn't matter WHO appointed them, the fact is that the 9th Circus is EXTREMELY liberal..

Denying this is denying reality..

Because Trump's never defined extreme vetting, all he'll need to do is add his own tweaks to a vetting system that is already pretty robust.

And yet, according to Obama officials, it is STILL extremely flawed...

I don't remember anyone saying that his nominees wouldn't get confirmed, only that they shouldn't get confirmed. With control of both houses, those that bought their positions in our government are all in place.

Putin cleared the way for Exxon to ship the oil they will start pumping out of the Russian wilderness (just as soon as those sanctions get lifted) when he invaded the Ukraine and took over the sea port of Crimea. Now Russia won't have to pay any taxes to get that oil to the refineries. The Exxon deal is worth an estimated 3 TRILLION dollars. It shouldn't come as a shock to most people that two of Trump's early campaign advisors just happened to have close ties to the Russian oil company that Exxon made the deal with.

And I am sure that this didn't have anything to do with Trump's only input on the GOP's platform was changing it from saying that we would support Crimea and the Ukraine if they were attacked by Russia to say that we wouldn't interfere or provide support. Can't let a drop of oil go to waste once it gets flowing!!!

BigOil has officially bought and paid for this country's government! First with the GOP, now with the Presidency and his cabinet.

I don't remember anyone saying that his nominees wouldn't get confirmed, only that they shouldn't get confirmed. With control of both houses, those that bought their positions in our government are all in place.

Democrat Op-Eds are replete with vows to stop nominees like Mnuchen (it's funny to see his name listed in Movie Credits :D), DeVoes, Sessions and the SecState guy...

BigOil has officially bought and paid for this country's government! First with the GOP, now with the Presidency and his cabinet.

Yea.. And Bill Clinton had a resident alien from Alpha Centauri in his bedroom..

You do realize how you sound when you scream about BIG OIL OWNS OUR GOVERNMENT!!! right...

Do you HONESTLY believe that things have changed drastically since the Obama Administration??

I mean, take a step back and look at it honestly and logically and rationally...

On the DAY that President Trump took office, Big Oil gained control of the country..

There was absolutely NO INFLUENCE of Big Oil in the Obama years...

It *ALL* happened on the exact DAY that a guy with an '-R' after his name took office...

Do you see how utterly whacked that sounds??? I am talking rubber-room-designer-sweaters-with-long-long-sleeves whacked...

I had predicted that ALL of President Trump's cabinet nominees would be confirmed. That Democrats could not mount a SINGLE effective challenge to the nominees..

I don't remember that prediction being challenged, however you may have a chicken counting problem. Puzder isn't through the Senate yet, and he might be more difficult to clear than expected. He will probably get through by getting Pence to tie-break again, but there are still questions out there. He is likely to be so embarrassing that I almost want him to get nominated from an entertainment perspective.

You also forgot 45's pick for Army Secretary who gave up when he found out he couldn't be a big cheese in the hockey world any longer if he accepted the position. You could say he was a bad puck for the position (sorry).

no matter how odious I find them to be politicaly can HONESTLY hold a clearance I will not be harping that they should not be allowed near our secrets...

Bullshit...

And do you know how I know that it's bullshit??

Because you voted for a candidate who, by all the rules and laws in this country, is INCAPABLE of holding a security clearance...

So, if you don't mind NOT-45 being allowed near our secrets, SOLELY because she has a '-D' after her name, you have absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION whatsoever to complain about anyone else's access to our secrets...

What would you call President Trump if he didn't know that the guy he tapped for National Security advisor was negotiating with the Russians about removing sanctions once his administration took office?

If this is how Trump is going to govern, then you need to be more concerned abut what comes next with this administration and forget about the petty discussion talking points that characterize this comments section.

I raise good and valid points on a daily basis.. When was the last time ANYONE here said, "Ya know, michale.. That's a good point.. I stand corrected"...???

Answer: never..

So, you can say a lot about me, but the one thing you CANNOT say is that I don't call my own bullshit..

What would you call President Trump if he didn't know that the guy he tapped for National Security advisor was negotiating with the Russians about removing sanctions once his administration took office?

The same thing ya'all said when President Obama was begging the Russian president for a little slack so Obama could win re-election..

You see, that's the point.. No one can rationally and logically analyze anything because of the ideological blinders that say EVERYTHING the Right does is bad, EVERYTHING the Left does is good...

That should read "No.. Ideologically one sided is the word I would use..."

And that's not one word, that's three.. :D

"You know, Harry, there are only, uh, five words, I want to hear from you right now and those words are: 'You know A.J., I really look up to you, you been a hero of mine for sometime, and I'm really impressed with your work and I'm emotionally closed off'...
That's like - I dunno, that's like eleven words or something. You know what how bout just: A.J., I'm sorry and I love you?"
-AJ, ARMAGEDDON

Michale (46)-
"...no one wants to be accused of being anti-Democrat."
You complain about name-calling and yet you call me no one.
"...name calling is what immature people who don't have any valid argument do..."
Are you admitting that you had no valid arguments every time you called Obama Odumbo?

No joke intended. The heart and sole of this site is rightfully The Articles authored by CW and guest commentators. The comments section is an appendix, but it has become inflamed by what amounts to a parasitic alt.facs sub-blog. It's largely about the parasite now. I choose not to play that game.

The state of the comments in no way affects the core content. I continue to read each and every column, it's part of my coffee ritual. I will continue to donate at Kitten Time.

"I am right and you are wrong.
That is why is sing this song.
You are wrong, you know you are.
Admit I'm right and you'll go far.
No pesky facts fit on your plate.
You'd rather just pontificate.
Forget the times we might agree.
'Cause no one is as right as me.
No time to look for common ground.
It's much more fun to put you down.
If me as king you won't anoint.
Then I'll log off and smoke a joint."

No joke intended. The heart and sole of this site is rightfully The Articles authored by CW and guest commentators. The comments section is an appendix, but it has become inflamed by what amounts to a parasitic alt.facs sub-blog. It's largely about the parasite now. I choose not to play that game.

And yet, here you are and still with the childish name-calling and immature personal attacks..

"..if people could just remember the simple courtesies..."
That reminds me. A belated thanks for not claiming Trump was not a Big Money candidate as I asked (it was really more of an order) in a previous comments section.
I realize that doesn't mean you agree.
I don't know if you were being nice or just missed the comment, but I'm willing to give you credit for being nice. Even if it doesn't really apply, you probably have a few coming that you didn't get.

I'm willing to give you credit for being nice. Even if it doesn't really apply, you probably have a few coming that you didn't get.

Thanx... Positive re-enforcement like this is what makes it easier to be nice.. :D

That reminds me. A belated thanks for not claiming Trump was not a Big Money candidate as I asked (it was really more of an order) in a previous comments section.

Trump was obviously a "big money" candidate... But I think the distinction that he was a big money candidate with his OWN money is the important distinction..

Not-45 was obviously a "Big Money" candidate who was bought and paid for by special interest groups and lobbyists.. She had absolutely NO OBLIGATION to the people who voted for her.. The American people knew this, which is why she lost..

President Trump didn't take any (relatively speaking) money from lobbyists and special interests...

Which is why I always commented that Trump was actually the DREAM candidate for people like David et al.. A candidate that was rich enough to not have to take lobbyist money to win the election..

45 may not have used as much money as Hillary, however he did use considerable third party sources.

Would be have nominated Betsy DeVos if she wasn't part of a $200M donation family? I mean really, the woman is totally unqualified and there is no link between 45's campaign promises on education and her whacky ideas.

In addition, the weakening of Dodd-Frank and the embrace of a bevy of Goldman-Sachs alumni runs directly counter to 45's own rhetoric and any pretense that he isn't wallowing in even deeper mud holes than Hillary would have done.

To say 45 is a man-of-the-people-for-the-people is as delusional as his crowd size claims or voting fraud lies.

This should have been apparent from almost his first public outing where he went to a top end NY Restaurant and proclaimed loudly that he was going to give huge tax cuts to the attendant clientele. From that point on he has been a friend to the rich and powerful.

This was one of his biggest cons - that he was going to do anything for the little guy. Obviously the regular Joe's who voted for him can't admit that he has forgotten them already, so they cling to outrage from the left as proof that he is doing something in their favor.

However there isn't much place for the economy to go but sideways or down, we aren't seeing the pain of the Obamacare repeal yet, and the venality of the proposed tax cuts isn't apparent.

All we have are controversies around Muslim bans, a circus show in the White House and a bunch of rich people being promoted to top office.

Oh, and we now get to pay for the Wall (as those of us who can spot a con man knew from the minute he claimed Mexico was going to pay for it).

YOU are the one who acts like everyone else who reads this site is some kind of extreme leftist.

I'm an Eisenhower Republican at heart, and I can tell you something.

Everything these "liberals" on THIS site say? Is mostly true. They present facts.

You, however, accuse everyone on this site, and everyone left of Tom Cotton, of the sins of random people you saw on the news.

I'm tired of this. I love this site because Chris is a reasonable man, with reasonable positions who is aware of his own biases.

I'm tired of watching a piece of trash, lying, slandering pseudo-conservative not only disrupting what could be one of the most thoughtful and challenging comment sections around, but smearing the good name of conservatives and Republicans with your ranting, partisan insanity.

I'm about to turn on combat mode and just start responding to every comment you make with a post calling you a troll, Michale.

If you want to stop the insults, stop saying "The Left" like it's a coherent thing, and want to stop telling people "You are the one who believes this" or "You didn't say X when Y did this" because those are dishonest, trolling comments meant to make it impossible to respond to the subject at hand, because you've begun attacking the messenger.

I'm TIRED OF IT.

You're a troll, and it's time we stand up to you. I bet I'm not the only person who is silent because it's easier to just not deal with Michale.

Trolls shouldn't be able to buy their way into places, and if Chris wants to have it that way, then he is going to have to man up and accept that when you invite trolls into your house, this is what happens.

Michale is a lying, slandering troll, and I'm not going to sit here and quietly ignore it while he does it.

That's how we've gotten into this situation; allowing liars and trolls to do what they wanted because we're too polite to do the right thing and just shut them down.

We don't need Chris; if we all just told him to shut up everytime he posted, he would leave.

I mean, he just promised to leave if we wanted him to, so at least now we'll have more proof that he's lying.

But the point is that President Trump used mostly his own and grass-roots donations..

He was not bought and paid for like NOT-45 was...

Sure you can quibble about a minor nit pick here or a minor pick nit there... But anyone living in reality and adheres to FACTS has to concede that, comparatively speaking, President Trump is NOT beholden to any special interests save patriotic Americans.

This is fact..

Would be have nominated Betsy DeVos if she wasn't part of a $200M donation family? I mean really, the woman is totally unqualified and there is no link between 45's campaign promises on education and her whacky ideas.

That's your opinion.. But, as has been well-established, it's an opinion borne of partisan bias with very little facts to support it..

To say 45 is a man-of-the-people-for-the-people is as delusional as his crowd size claims or voting fraud lies.

And yet, President Trump won the election on a Populist/ManOfThePeople platform..

So, who am I to believe?? Your biased opinions?? Or the facts??

All we have are controversies around Muslim bans, a circus show in the White House and a bunch of rich people being promoted to top office.

*AND* a bunch of whiney and bitchey Left Wingers who loot and pillage and destroy because they didn't get their way..

Don't forget them.. :D

Just the facts.. :D

I'd just ignore him, or use the blocker.

Hortie-Poo doesn't have the staying power to do either.. He'll just do a couple drive-bys and be gone by the end of the day... :D

I use the Tamper Monkey blocker, but it is only a partial solution. The comments remain strewn with well meaning but pointless responses to The Troll. The Troll is not interested in discussion, he interested in attention and watching everybody dance. Responding to The Troll just contributes to annoying clutter that still takes a lot of effort to navigate through/around. Not every comment demands a counter reply. If readers showed more discipline, the Tamper Monkey would be a pretty effective spam screening device. Without compromising anyone's freedom of speech.

I use the Tamper Monkey blocker, but it is only a partial solution. The comments remain strewn with well meaning but pointless responses to The Troll. The Troll is not interested in discussion, he interested in attention and watching everybody dance. Responding to The Troll just contributes to annoying clutter that still takes a lot of effort to navigate through/around. Not every comment demands a counter reply. If readers showed more discipline, the Tamper Monkey would be a pretty effective spam screening device. Without compromising anyone's freedom of speech.

How many times are you going to "IGNORE" me in this commentary, TS?? :D

You don't seem to realize that you are accusing everyone of doing the EXACT same thing you are doing... :D

Breaking news suggests that "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up" is about to take center stage. It may be too late for Trump to cut losses. Cover-up may well be the only game in town. DC or Mar-a-Lago.

Breaking news suggests that "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up" is about to take center stage. It may be too late for Trump to cut losses. Cover-up may well be the only game in town. DC or Mar-a-Lago.

Oh, and we now get to pay for the Wall (as those of us who can spot a con man knew from the minute he claimed Mexico was going to pay for it).

Yes, but as has been pointed out exhaustively and backed up with facts and reality, ya'all claimed to "know" a lot... Very VERY little of which has come to pass...

I had a similar discussion with my lovely wife on this topic... She thought that it was important that President Trump follow thru with who pays for it.. I remarked that, from a security point of view, it doesn't matter WHO pays for it, as long as it's built...

I said to her, "If we build a fence to protect your family, and it keeps the bad guys out, does it really matter WHO pays for it??"

Breaking news suggests that "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up" is about to take center stage.

Blood in the water. I'm waiting for the minute that Republican Senators and Congresspeople realize that 45 is weakening and they don't need to fear his supporters in their districts - especially if they are getting pounded constantly by their non-fanboy constituents every time they put their heads above the parapet.

This might be the tipping point, or it might just be the first major wound - there are going to be a lot of long knives out for him. The establishment isn't going to be held down for ever.

President Trump is your president. You need to accept that and realize that the Establishment is not going to save the Left...

This isn't an acceptance thing - this is an observation - albeit colored by my hope that we can clip the wings of this clown soon and cause confusion within the Republican Party to open the door for progressives in 2018.

I don't want to see the environment trashed, the school system destroyed, deficits explode, millions lose their healthcare and Americans in more danger because of provocative and pointless foreign policy fiascos (Mexico, China, Russia and the Muslim ban). That isn't too much to ask.

This isn't an acceptance thing - this is an observation - albeit colored by my hope that we can clip the wings of this clown soon and cause confusion within the Republican Party to open the door for progressives in 2018.

I understand your hope.. I really do...

But this is where the lack of acceptance comes in... The Democrat Party is decimated... It's in the worst shape it's been in, in over 100 years...

This is fact...

It's lost over 1000 political seats in the last 6 years... Not all of that can be explained by President Trump...

The Democrat Party needs to take a good long look at itself and give an HONEST assessment of it's problems and issues.

To date, it's been simply incapable of doing that...

So, while I understand your hope for 2018, the facts clearly show that it's a baseless hope, a fact-less hope.....

I don't want to see the environment trashed, the school system destroyed, deficits explode, millions lose their healthcare and Americans in more danger because of provocative and pointless foreign policy fiascos (Mexico, China, Russia and the Muslim ban). That isn't too much to ask.

But you DO want to see a United States with open borders that is simply another cog in a global machine, no better than any 3rd world shithole....

If we're lucky, the old Establishment, the Establishment that increased the debt by trillions, tens of trillions, the Establishment that forced hundreds of millions of Americans out of the work force, the Establishment that brought in tens of millions of illegal immigrants and refugees infiltrated by terrorists...

If we're luck, THAT Establishment will be thrown on the trash heap of history and a NEW Establishment, an Establishment that puts America and Americans first will rise up in it's stead....

Any Establishment that wants to bring in tens of thousands of illegal immigrants and put them on government welfare while out veterans are DYING in hospitals and on the streets due to long wait times and homelessness...

But hay... Who here actually CARES about the facts... It's all hysterical Party ideology around here from ya'all...

I've just finished reading the board. Wow... just wow.

I don't think you quite understood my meaning yesterday, so I'm going to ask you again. How would you like it if someone posted things about you... with the exception that those things were actually true?

Translation: Keep it up. I won't post BS about you: I will post the truth.

michale [27]

The facts clearly show how wrong you are..

Which begs the question..

Are you just wrong??

Or are you lying?? :D

Am I lying about Trump's IQ? No that was just a typo, I meant he had a low EQ.

Now do you keep up your BS with me, or do I tell everyone the truth about you? Your call.

...Flynn spoke to the Ambassador of Russia multiple times on the very day that the United States was about to announce additional sanctions on Russia.

I won't speculate on what Mr. Trump told his subordinates with regards to Russia, semi-officially, although he was not yet the President. I will also not speculate upon what the FBI has said about the interactions between the Trump campaign (and yet-to-be installed administration) and the Russian government...

On Monday, Fox News reported that the Russian Navy is trolling the East Coast for the first time since 2015, and they are doing so at 10 knots. I will add that at this hour they are doing so with their Identification System (known as an AIS) turned off, as warships are allowed to do. Look for yourself. Can't find them? That's an indication to the Trump Administration that the ships operating just off the American coast are purely military.

Want to guess what they are doing directly opposite of the Delaware Coast? Moving slowly exactly opposite from Washington, D.C.?

Here is a clue: It takes a while to move a ship. Do the math yourself.

I didn't know what that meant. In the comments:

He is implying that the ship was picking up coded signals from a spy in the DC area. That is why 10 knots matters. That's just fast enough to keep your bow pointed into the wind (that prevents seasickness by reducing roll), without actually going anywhere.

Also:

And the fact that they are off the coast heading AWAY from DC means that they were a lot closer, oh say, 12 hours ago.

And:

Or that it was launched shortly after Yates told the Trump admin Flynn was compromised.

Finally:

Also, it allows you lots of time to sit and listen... just, listen.. to the conversations and communications all over Washington. Putin is probably opening his third bottle of Dom right now.

He is implying that the ship was picking up coded signals from a spy in the DC area. That is why 10 knots matters. That's just fast enough to keep your bow pointed into the wind (that prevents seasickness by reducing roll), without actually going anywhere.

So Flynn is a Russian spy!?? :D

It's hilarious... Four short years ago, ya'all scoffed at the idea of Russia being an enemy of the US...

What was it that was said??

The 80s are calling. They want their foreign policy back

NOW...

Now that it's ideologically advantageous, NOW Russia is the great enemy...

We are at war with East Asia. We have always been at war with East Asia.

No, pal, I will post YOUR truth. You are a troll. I think a good start in posting YOUR truth will be to simply provide a link to your prior stomping grounds where you trolled everyone there until they finally managed to be rid of you.

How's about I do that?

But YOUR truth was that NOT-45 was going to win the election...

You're changing the subject. I would certainly change the subject if I were you.

That's your entire problem..

You think YOUR truth is EVERYONE's truth.. And you attack anyone who says different..

How does this drivel square with your rhetoric that everyone here has the same "Left Wingery" views? Careful now... you're undermining your own BS.

No, pal, I will post YOUR truth. You are a troll. I think a good start in posting YOUR truth will be to simply provide a link to your prior stomping grounds where you trolled everyone there until they finally managed to be rid of you.

How's about I do that?

Knock yerself out, sunshine.. :D

Your truth is not facts....

You're changing the subject. I would certainly change the subject if I were you.

Nope.. We're talking about truth... YOUR truth was that NOT-45 was going to win the election...

YOUR truth was a fantasy..

Just like any truth you try to come up with..

How does this drivel square with your rhetoric that everyone here has the same "Left Wingery" views? Careful now... you're undermining your own BS.

Yea?? Then why are you so aggravated?? :D

I must have hit a sore spot, eh sunshine?? Whatsamatter?? Truth hurts?? :D

No, pal, I will post YOUR truth. You are a troll. I think a good start in posting YOUR truth will be to simply provide a link to your prior stomping grounds where you trolled everyone there until they finally managed to be rid of you.

Don't tell me, let me guess..

Banter Line, right?? :D

I would LOVE to find the links to that.. By all means... Knock yerself out...

I am flattered that you would go to so much trouble over lil ol' me...

I'm sure I heard the line during the Nixon debacle, it stuck, was retrieved from deep memory, I just re-purposed it. I can't source the quote, I suspect it was either Robert Klein or George Carlin. All comedy is recycled, none is really new.

Yeah, and so they probably recycled it from somewhere else, but you still win the Internet - congrats TS!

If 45 gets to a state of complete impotence but keeps up the pandemonium this is going to be a great 4 years. Especially if progressives get the House and/or Senate back in 2018 and 45 starts losing it even more.

“It’s my view that Reince is the problem,” he told the newspaper. “I think on paper Reince looked good as the chief of staff — and Donald trusted him — but it’s pretty clear the guy is in way over his head.”

Is FBI Director Comey on vacation or something? Has anybody got his number? Is there a searchlight with his silhouette that can be projected onto a cloud? I think Comey would want to start interrogating this Flynn character....whenever he's all rested up and back at the home office.

It depends on how their "tea party" coalesces, and if it's truly a national movement and not just an urban one.

I think we're going to find as time goes on that the people who voted for trump because they wanted any kind of change are going to find that very little actually changes, and what does change won't be to their liking.

Any way you cut it, the old power dynamics are dead, and 45, for all his ills, is at least going to jimmy loose the reins of control from the entrenched politicos, if only by showing how incompetent they really are.

The Old Guard is falling as we speak, and there is now New Guard ready to rise.

This is one of the most exciting times to be alive in all of human history, thanks to the internet and insane tech advancements.

Now, we get to witness something that has only happened a couple of times in our national history; a rearrangement of the parties.

So you are prostitroll? You troll for a living? Wow! I was willing to put up with your crap because every now and then you turned off the trolling and acted like a decent human being. It's a real shame that you aren't willing to let that person speak more often, because his comments were always well thought out and reasonable without needing to attack anyone else. If you actually believed the crap you say it would one thing, but knowing you'll say anything for money completely discredits your already factually challenged statements.

Who doesn't like to inject a little controversy? Surely not any of us!

But, let's try something new ...

Keep to the countless critical issues we have to discuss, voicing our strongly held convictions and assumptions, leaving out what may or may not motivate us, ignoring - yeah, just ignoring - those contributions which only frustrate us and lead to places we don't want to go.

I first started following US politics in a serious way during the Iran/Contra affair. I still remember Oliver North sitting in the witness chair like it was yesterday! Strange how some things just refuse to leave your memory.

Anyway, I'm wondering if the connections between the Trump administration and Russia really do rise to the level of that scandal. Many things seem to point in that direction but, are we making the proverbial mountain out of a mole hill, so to speak? :)

Liz, I don't think the Russian connection has had time to mature to that level; Flynn was almost certainly the closest connection with the highest rank, though Manafort left some aides with Russian ties behind; I imagine they are the ones the NYT are reporting on tonight.

The fact that we're pretending it's a surprise, when Paul Manafort was campaign manager, is stupid. Trump's campaign was in contact with Russia from that point on. I'm unsure before that, but Manafort is a Putin lackey.

Honestly I don't think 45 is colluding with Russia against the US; I think that his staff is likely compromised however.

I wonder if 45 knew about the dual FBI and DoD investigations? It's possible that Obama sat on that until the last minute, giving Trump the rope to hang himself with.

I mean, it was pretty clear Flynn was a huge liability, and that's before I knew about that DoD investigation into apparent payments from Russia.

It smacks of 45 just ignoring or not hearing what didn't fit his internal message.

I do have to say though; I think that 45's cabinet picks are like, 30% decent, 40% questionable but not offensive, and 30% cray cray.

Like, Tillerson might be a good SoS. Mattis is the best choice you're gonna get for that role (and I have read a bit indicating that 45 has been listening to the old man), and I actually like that VA pick.

Which (oddly for me) put me inthe position of agreeing with the Establishment Democrat's calls for not stonewalling 45's nominees, on principle.

But MAN, how bad at politics are these guys? It was clear an insider was riding up a huge hill last year; why not let the motivated outsider running on your side have a real fair shot? All it would have taken to really even out the primary would be the DNC ENFORCING RULES THAT ALREADY EXISTED.

See, there's a DNC rule requiring news media that want direct access to the DNC's organizational information (basically, to get the numbers and info straight from the DNC) not to report superdelegate's preferences as won for any candidate, since the superdelegate's don't vote until the convention.

Yet every single (Liberal/ish) website I went to, most notably the Huffingtonpost, included those Superdelegates in their math as though they had voted and were all locked in for Hillary already.

I mean Huffpo literally had a "horserace" animation, and before voting ever started in the DNC primary, Hillary's horse was 40% down the track.

I don't know how anyone who saw that, A MONTH before the primaries start, can tell me that things were tilted against Bernie.

You take that out, and I bet Bernie could have closed the gap.

Personally, I don't think superdelegates should say anything until their state's have voted; then, they should be allowed to comment as they wish.

And in a Trump v Bernie match, I think Bernie comes out ahead because they appealed to the same groups, but Bernie's appeal is broader.

We've been clamoring for an edit button around here for a while now. Sigh.

Dems don't have to be reasonable with their congressional counterparts as much as they need to demonstrate that lessons have been learned and that they know how to govern with the peoples' best interests at heart.

They could start by not watching Obamacare die a slow death just because it will make the Republicans look bad. They need to acknowledge the deficiencies of the ACA and outline what changes need to be put in place to make it more effective. Clearly there are problems with it and, as I understand it, there are viable solutions as well.

i don't even know how to enter this conversation. judges are doing their jobs, and the checks and balances are working. i believe this country will survive trump's presidency and maybe even be stronger because of it. clearly the president has overstepped, and clearly he's been reprimanded for it. people of all political stripes are have long been clamoring for clarity, and that at least he delivers.

lest it be lost and forgotten at the far bottom of last friday's comments section, that's why i suggested 20/20 as the name for the new lefty movement.

Can you see where someone could have the opinion that the 9th Circuit's decision was a "poor decision" and that opinion would be just as valid and just as "correct" as your opinion re: the Citizens United decision???

they could have that opinion, but no, not all judicial decisions have equal merit or equal import. comparing citizens united to washington v trump would be like comparing plessy v ferguson to morse v frederick.

ain't the same f*ckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same f*ckin' sport.
-pulp fiction

they could have that opinion, but no, not all judicial decisions have equal merit or equal import. comparing citizens united to washington v trump would be like comparing plessy v ferguson to morse v frederick.

You miss my point..

I am not weighing the historical or societal significance of of the decision.. You are correct as far as you go that certain decisions have more impact than others.. I would point out that the determination of such impact is ALSO ideologically variable, but that's a discussion for another time, if you wish..

MY point is that, strictly looking at the decision of a judge, it's possible that 2 people may have differing opinions on the validity and/or the advisability of the decision and that each person's opinion (all things being equal) are of equal validity..

no, that's a hypothetical bridge i'm not willing to cross. Citizens United, like Plessy, had a valid constitutional argument behind it but did decades worth of damage to the fabric of the Union. Trump, like Morse, took a hopelessly laughable argument and tried to flaunt both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. even that's giving it too much credit. at least bong hits for jesus was funny!